Village Council

Village of Winnetka Village Council Special Meeting June 9, 2026 at 7:00 PM Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Comments 4. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Resolution No. R-50-2026: Approving a Settlement and Tolling Agreement with AT&T Regarding the Undergrounding of Aerial Communications Facilities (Adoption) b. Ordinance No. M-11-2026: Denying a Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness for New Fencing at Centennial Beach for Off-Leash Dogs (Centennial Park and Beach, 225 Sheridan Road) (Introduction/Adoption) 5. Discussion a. Street Ends Policy Discussion i. Fisher Lane Extension ii. Spruce Street iii. Elm Street iv. Oak Street v. Cherry Street vi. Willow Road vii. Tower Road 6. Closed Session 7. Adjournment NOTICE Village Council meetings are video recorded. All agenda materials are available at villageofwinnetka.org (Governance > Agendas & Minutes); the Reference Desk at the Winnetka Library; or in the Manager’s Office at Village Hall (2nd floor). The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the Village ADA Coordinator, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, 847-716- 3543; T.D.D. 847-501-6041. Page 1 of 110  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-50-2026: Approving a Settlement and Tolling Agreement with AT&T Regarding the Undergrounding of Aerial Communications Facilities (Adoption) PRESENTER: Peter Friedman AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: The Village and AT&T have a long-standing franchise agreement that provides, among other things, for undergrounding of facilities. Over the years, the Village and AT&T have had a dispute about the nature and extent of the Village’s authority to require AT&T to underground various overhead facilities that AT&T maintains in the Village. The parties were unable to resolve this dispute and pursuant to Council direction the Village on June 4, 2024, filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against AT&T regarding AT&T’s obligations to underground its overhead facilities in the Village. AT&T filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and while that motion was being fully briefed, the parties engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the dispute. No ruling was made on the motion to dismiss prior to the parties’ decision to enter into the proposed settlement agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Under the proposed settlement agreement, AT&T has agreed to complete its Tower Road removal project by December 1, 2026, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practical. The Tower Road project will include the elimination of approximately 36 poles and placement underground of approximately 19,500 feet of new conduit and approximately 70 new underground handhole enclosures. AT&T has also committed to removal of an additional set of facilities where the Village has already removed its electric facilities, with 25 percent of these facilities to be removed within four years and the remaining within seven years. Finally, for any overhead facilities that are on utility poles where the Village has not yet removed its electrical facilities as of the effective date of the agreement, AT&T has agreed to remove its overhead facilities within six years after the date on which the Village provides written notice to AT&T identifying the specific location of the additional facility. The dates for removal are subject to AT&T receiving regulatory approval for these activities. The agreement also provides that the Village will be responsible for the actual removal of the poles themselves once AT&T has removed its overhead facilities. Significantly, the agreement tolls all of the Village’s claims, which means that if for some reason AT&T does not comply with its obligations under the Agreement, the Village could again initiate litigation without a statute of limitations issue. Page 2 of 110 RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting Resolution No. R-50-2026: Approving a Settlement and Tolling Agreement with AT&T Regarding the Undergrounding of Aerial Communications Facilities (Adoption). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-50-2026: Approving a Settlement and Tolling Agreement with AT&T Regarding the Undergrounding of Aerial Communications Facilities Page 3 of 110  RESOLUTION NO. R-50-2026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT WITH AT&T REGARDING THE UNDERGROUNDING OF AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 1984, the Village Council passed Ordinance No. M-170- 84, authorizing the Village to enter into a franchise agreement (“Franchise Agreement”) with Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation (“Illinois Bell”), for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a telephone utility within the Village; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2018, Illinois Bell converted to AT&T, an Illinois limited liability company (“AT&T”), becoming Illinois Bell’s successor in interest under the Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, under the Franchise Agreement, AT&T maintains significant aerial communication facilities on approximately 2,200 utility poles throughout the Village (“Overhead Facilities”); and WHEREAS, the Village and AT&T have had an ongoing dispute regarding the nature, extent and enforceability of AT&T’s obligation to relocate its Overhead Facilities underground (“Dispute”); and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the Village filed a verified complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Village of Winnetka v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC, 2024 CH 5274, requesting, among other things, a declaration regarding AT&T’s obligation to underground its Overhead Facilities (“Litigation”); and WHEREAS, the Village and AT&T have reached an agreement that includes, among other things, (i) an enforceable and comprehensive plan and schedule for removal of a significant number of Overhead Facilities in the Village and (ii) tolling provisions that toll any applicable statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, laches, and any notice provisions related to the claims raised by the Village in the Litigation in order to allow the Village and AT&T to devote their efforts and resources to implementing the removal program in the agreement (“Settlement and Tolling Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Village President and Village Council have determined that entering into the Settlement and Tolling Agreement with AT&T is in the best interest of the Village and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: June 9, 2026 R-50-2026 Page 4 of 110  SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT. The Settlement and Tolling Agreement attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A is approved in a final form and substance satisfactory to the Village President and the Village Attorney. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT. The Village Council authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the Village, the Settlement and Tolling Agreement. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk June 9, 2026 R-50-2026 Page 5 of 110  EXHIBIT A SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT June 9, 2026 R-50-2026 Page 6 of 110  Execution Version June 9, 2026 SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA This Settlement and Tolling Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 9th day of June, 2026 (“Effective Date”), between and among the Village of Winnetka, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation (“Village”); and Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC d/b/a AT&T Illinois (“AT&T”), an Illinois limited liability company that is successor in interest to the former Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation (“Illinois Bell”) (the Village and AT&T are collectively the “Parties” and individually each a “Party”). WHEREAS, the Village and Illinois Bell are parties to a franchise agreement approved by the Village Council on December 4, 1984, as Ordinance No. M-170-84 (“Franchise Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2018, Illinois Bell, the Illinois corporation converted to AT&T, the Illinois limited liability company, thus becoming Illinois Bell’s successor in interest under the Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement grants certain rights to AT&T for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a telephone utility within the Village; and WHEREAS, AT&T, as successor by conversion to Illinois Bell, has assumed all of Illinois Bell’s rights and obligations under the Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement specifically grants AT&T certain rights to construct, operate and maintain utility facilities in the Village, including in, upon, along, across, under, and over Village streets, alleys, and public ways, to conduct its telephone and telecommunications business, pursuant to the terms of the Franchise Agreement and other applicable laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, as part of its facilities in the Village, AT&T maintains significant aerial communication facilities (overhead lines and related equipment) with a substantial number of miles of overhead wires and cables on approximately 2,200 utility poles throughout the Village (“Overhead Facilities”); and WHEREAS, the Village has maintained code requirements requiring the ultimate undergrounding of all overhead utilities in the Village where the Village has undergrounded its electric distribution facilities, including Overhead Facilities owned and maintained by AT&T; and WHEREAS, the Village and AT&T have had an ongoing dispute regarding the nature, extent and enforceability of AT&T’s obligation to relocate its Overhead Facilities underground, specifically whether Section 12 of the Franchise Agreement along with Section 13.08.220 of the Winnetka Municipal Code require the undergrounding of these AT&T Facilities and, if so, whether that asserted requirement is valid and enforceable under Illinois law; and 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 Page 7 of 110  WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the Village filed a verified complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Village of Winnetka v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC, 2024 CH 5274, requesting, among other things, a declaration regarding AT&T’s obligation to underground its Overhead Facilities (“Litigation”); and WHEREAS, AT&T filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Litigation and disputes any liability for the claims alleged in the Litigation and specifically any obligation under the Franchise Agreement, the Village Municipal Code, Illinois law or otherwise to underground its Overhead Facilities located in the Village; and WHEREAS, AT&T and the Village have undertaken cooperative, extensive discussions related to a proposal for AT&T to underground or otherwise remove AT&T’s Overhead Facilities located in a location of particular importance to the Village; namely, Tower Road between Forestway Drive and Green Bay Road; and WHEREAS, AT&T currently intends to discontinue offering traditional legacy telephone service in Illinois, including the Village, within the next several years and therefore currently intends to discontinue its use of the currently installed aerial facilities; and WHEREAS, the Village and AT&T have concluded that it is in their mutual and respective best interests to toll any applicable statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, laches, and any notice provisions related to the claims raised by the Village in the Litigation in order to allow the Parties to devote their efforts and resources to attempting to resolve their dispute; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of ongoing litigation, the Village and AT&T desire, conditioned on compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, to reach an accord regarding the claims asserted in the Litigation without the Parties admitting any unlawful activity or liability to each other and without admitting the sufficiency of any claim or defense related to the Litigation; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration stated in this Agreement, the adequacy of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. AT&T Commitments. A. Tower Road Project. AT&T will underground or otherwise eliminate all of its Overhead Facilities on Tower Road between Forestway Drive and Green Bay Road (“Tower Road Project”). The Tower Road Project will include the elimination of approximately 36 poles and placement underground of approximately 19,500 feet of new conduit and approximately 70 new underground handhole enclosures. The Tower Road Project is depicted on Exhibit A to this Agreement is under AT&T Permit No. A052MGR approved by the Village on January 9, 2026 as the final permit for the Tower Road Project reflecting the terms to which AT&T agreed and the Village has approved. AT&T will endeavor to complete the Tower Road Project on or before December 1, 2026, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. B. Additional Removal of Aerial Facilities. In addition to the Tower Road Project, AT&T, subject to the condition described below and in Paragraph 1.D, agrees to remove, 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 2 Page 8 of 110 within seven years of the Effective Date, its Overhead Facilities that are on utility poles in the Village’s public rights of way where, as of the Effective Date, the Village has removed its electrical facilities, which facilities are identified on Exhibit B to this Agreement (“Identified Additional Facilities”); provided, however, that AT&T shall remove at least 25% of Identified Additional Facilities within four years of the Effective Date; and provided further that, in the event that AT&T does not receive the regulatory authority to transition customers served by the Overhead Facilities to an alternative service (referenced below) until after April 2027, the time-frame within which AT&T’s shall remove at least 25% of the Identified Additional Facilities shall be extended by a time period equal to the number of months between April 2027 and the month in which such regulatory authority is received. For any Overhead Facilities that are on utility poles where the Village has not removed its electrical facilities as of the Effective Date (“Future Additional Facilities”), AT&T, again subject to the condition described below and in Paragraph 1.D, agrees to remove its Overhead Facilities within six years after the date on which the Village provides written notice to AT&T identifying the specific location of the Future Additional Facility. AT&T’s obligations regarding the removal of Identified Additional Facilities and Future Additional Facilities shall consist solely of removing such facilities from the subject poles; AT&T shall have no responsibility whatsoever concerning removal of any facilities of other entities on such poles or concerning the removal of, or any other action regarding, the poles themselves. AT&T’s obligations under this Paragraph 1.B are conditional on AT&T having the necessary regulatory authority to transition any customers still served by the Overhead Facilities to an alternative service, or otherwise to cease providing service to such customers. AT&T presently anticipates that it will possess the necessary regulatory authority by the end of 2026, but the receipt of such authority, and its continued existence, thereafter, are not certain, requiring the aforementioned condition. For the avoidance of doubt, if AT&T is unable to complete the removal of the Identified Additional Facilities and the Future Additional Facilities as provided in this Paragraph 1.B due to the lack of necessary regulatory authority, the Village reserves and retains its rights to enforce the Franchise Agreement and Village Code and assert all claims advanced in the Litigation, and AT&T reserves and retains its rights to assert all defenses to those claims, subject to provisions related to tolling in Section 3 of this Agreement. Also for the avoidance of doubt, while this Agreement is effective and AT&T is in compliance with all of its obligations in Paragraphs 1.A or 1.B, the Village will not seek to enforce against Section 12 of the Franchise Agreement or Section 13.08.220 of the Winnetka Municipal Code, or any other agreement or law purporting to require removal or undergrounding of Overhead Facilities, C. Potential Cost Savings. In areas in the Village where AT&T intends to install fiber facilities (other than in connection with the Tower Road Project) or otherwise remove its Overhead Facilities, AT&T agrees to work cooperatively with the Village and will devote special consideration to opportunities to underground fiber facilities or otherwise remove its Overhead Facilities simultaneously with the Village’s undergrounding or removal of its electric distribution facilities, as such scenarios offer potential cost savings. D. Excusable Delays. The Tower Road Project as provided in Paragraph A of this Section, and the removal of the Identified Additional Facilities and the Future Additional Facilities as provided in this Paragraph B of this Section, may require various permits and other authorizations in order to proceed, including specifically, but without limitation, the approval of one or more private property owners where an element of undergrounding or removal is located on private property (“Required Authorizations”). AT&T will not be in 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 3 Page 9 of 110 default under this Agreement if it is not able to satisfy the various undergrounding or removal completion requirements under this Agreement to the extent caused by its inability to obtain the Required Authorizations for a particular aspect of the Tower Road Project or the removal of the Identified Additional Facilities and the Future Additional Facilities as provided in this Paragraph B of this Section, despite its good faith and best efforts to obtain the Required Authorizations. E. Regular Meeting. The Village and AT&T will meet no less than once every year to plan and coordinate the undergrounding or removal activities required under this Agreement. The required annual meeting will take place on or about the anniversary of the Effective Date. F. Permit Process Consistency. AT&T and the Village will each identify a single point of contact within their organizations with a detailed understanding of the Tower Road Project and the Identified Additional Facilities and the Future Additional Facilities to remain in regular contact with each other to coordinate and facilitate the various aspects of the work contemplated by this Agreement. G. Build Schedule Synchronization. To the greatest extent feasible, AT&T and the Village will align building projects in Tower Road Project rights-of-way or any subsequent work contemplated by this Agreement to reduce costs and road construction operations. H. Permit Streamlining. To the greatest extent feasible, the Village will streamline its process for issuance of permits required for the various elements of the Tower Road Project or any subsequent work contemplated by this Agreement in order to improve review and response time. I. General Cooperation. At all times under this Agreement, AT&T and the Village will communicate and cooperate as necessary in order to achieve the success of the Tower Road Project and any additional work contemplated by this Agreement. 2. Dismissal Order. The Parties will enter an agreed dismissal order in the form provided in Exhibit C to this Agreement dismissing the Litigation without prejudice (“Agreed Dismissal Order”), with each party bearing its own costs and fees, and the court retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Agreement. Each Party will execute the Agreed Dismissal Order in the spaces provided in Exhibit C. The Village and AT&T will cooperate to prepare and file the Agreed Dismissal Order and to ensure the entry of the Dismissal Order by the Court. 3. Termination and Tolling Provisions. A. Termination Date. Either Party may terminate this Agreement if the other Party has failed to comply with any of the material terms and conditions of this Agreement; provided, however, that prior to termination, the Party seeking termination must provide the other Party with 30 days written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation. If the nature of the violation makes a cure impossible within 30 days, the opportunity to cure the violation will be extended for the time necessary to reasonably cure the violation provided that the Party seeking to cure maintains ongoing efforts to eliminate the violation and comply with the Agreement. The effective date of termination under this Subsection is the “Termination Date” for purposes of this Agreement. 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 4 Page 10 of 110  B. Tolling Period. The Village and AT&T agree to toll all statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, equitable laches defenses, and any other time limitations or time-related defenses (whether equitable, statutory, contractual, or otherwise), from the Effective Date of this Agreement to 180 days following any Termination Date pursuant to Subsection A of this Section (“Tolling Period”) for any claim, demand, cause of action or suit that could be filed by either Party against the other Party to the Litigation which could arise out of or in any way relate to the subject matter of the Litigation, including any of the claims asserted by the Village in the Litigation. C. Use of Tolling Period. The Tolling Period will not be used in computing the running of time under any statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, equitable laches defense, or any other time limitations or time-related defenses (whether equitable, statutory, contractual, or otherwise) in defense against any lawsuit, action, claim, or other proceeding that either the Village or AT&T might bring against the other pertaining to the subject matter of the Litigation. Nothing in this Agreement will affect the Village’s or AT&T’s right to rely on any statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, equitable laches defense, or any other time limitations or time-related defenses (whether equitable, statutory, contractual, or otherwise) that may have accrued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. D. Expiration of Tolling Period. Upon the expiration of the Tolling Period following a Termination Date, any applicable statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, equitable laches defenses, or other time limitations, or time-related defenses (whether equitable, statutory, contractual, or otherwise) shall continue to accrue recommencing on the one hundred eightieth (180th) day after the Termination Date. 4. Release. Conditioned on compliance with the provisions of this Agreement concerning the Tower Road Project and for each additional Overhead Facility that is removed under Paragraph 1.B, each Party, for and on behalf of itself and its heirs, executors, personal representatives, agents, successors and assigns, and elected and appointed officials, employees, and attorneys, acknowledges full and complete satisfaction of, and fully and forever releases, acquits, and discharges each Party and their respective heirs, executors, officers, directors, employees, personal representatives, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, including, without limitation, all City elected officials and any other City officials (collectively, the “Releasees”) from any and all claims, causes of action, demands, liabilities, damages, obligations, and debts (collectively referred to as “Claims”), of every kind and nature, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, or fixed or contingent, which any Party holds or at any time previously held against any other Party, or any of them, arising out of or in any way related to the claims asserted in Litigation (with the exception of breaches of this Agreement), or under any other statute, rule or common law provision, including any claim for civil penalties arising from the facts alleged in the Litigation, with respect to the Tower Road Project and each Overhead Facility removed under Paragraph 1.B (as the case may be), through the Effective Date of this Agreement. The releases provided in this Section shall be effective and conditioned upon (i) the Effective Date of this Agreement, (ii) the entry of the Agreed Dismissal Order, and (iii) compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, save for claims regarding breach of this Agreement, neither Party releases any claims based on conduct or events subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement. 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 5 Page 11 of 110  5. No Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as an admission of liability on the part of any of the Parties, their respective Releasees, or any of them, such liability having been expressly denied. No inducements or representations have been made by any agent or attorney of any Party released under this Agreement as to the legal liability or other responsibility of any Party claimed responsible. 6. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are fully severable. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, that invalidity or unenforceability will not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions of the Agreement. 7. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement; supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, discussions or representations, oral or written, with respect to that subject matter; and cannot be amended except in a writing which specifically refers to this Agreement and is signed by each of the Parties. 8. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of, each of the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. 9. No Effect on Third Parties. The terms and conditions, covenants, agreements, powers, privileges, and notices of authorization contained in this Agreement are binding upon and inure only to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors, affiliates, assigns, heirs, agents, and attorneys including, without limitation, any of the Releasees. Only the Parties are authorized to rely upon the contents of this Agreement or are deemed a beneficiary of this Agreement. 10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County will retain jurisdiction over the Litigation matter for the sole purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Agreement. Cook County, Illinois will be the exclusive venue for any lawsuit arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This Agreement and any amendments to this Agreement will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to conflict of law principles. 11. Non-Waiver. The failure of any Party to this Agreement to exercise or enforce any provision of this Agreement on one or more occasions will not be deemed a waiver of that provision, nor will a waiver of any provision on one occasion affect a Party’s right to enforce that provision fully on other occasions. Any waiver must be in writing and signed by the Party waiving its right in order to be valid and enforceable. 12. Representation by Counsel and Drafting. Each of the Parties acknowledges that it has either been represented by or had access to competent legal counsel of its own choosing both in connection with the Litigation and in connection with the negotiations, drafting, and execution of this Agreement. Accordingly, the language used in this Agreement will be deemed to be language chosen by all Parties to express their mutual intent, and no rule of strict construction against any Party will apply to any term or condition of this Agreement. 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 6 Page 12 of 110  13. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement must be in writing and must be delivered (i) personally, (ii) by a reputable overnight courier, (iii) by certified mail, return receipt requested, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or (iv) by E-mail. E-mail notices will be deemed valid and received by the addressee only upon explicit or implicit acknowledgment of receipt by the addressee. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, notices will be deemed received upon the earlier of (a) actual receipt; (b) one business day after deposit with an overnight courier as evidenced by a receipt of deposit; or (c) three business days following deposit in the U.S. mail, as evidenced by a return receipt. By notice complying with the requirements of this Section, each party will have the right to change the address or the addressee, or both, for all future notices to the other party, but no notice of a change of addressee or address will be effective until actually received. Notices to the Village will be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Attention: Village Manager E-mail: kkazenas@winnetka.org With a copy to: Elrod Friedman LLP Village Attorney 350 N. Clark Street, Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 Attention: Peter M. Friedman E-mail: peter.friedman@elrodfriedman.com Notices to AT&T will be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: AT&T Engineering 1000 Commerce Drive Oak Brook, Illinois Attention: Bert Garcia E-mail: ag7562@att.com With a copy to: Brian A. McAleenan Duane Morris LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 E-mail: bamcaleenan@duanemorris 14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, will constitute a single instrument. 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 7 Page 13 of 110  15. Captions. The section headings in the Agreement are for convenience and reference only and will not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of the Agreement. 16. Warranty of Authority. Each Party executing this Agreement warrants to the other that it has the authority to act for and bind the party for which it executes this Agreement. 17. Free and Voluntary Acts. Each Party enters into this Agreement as a free and voluntary act, with full knowledge of its legal consequences. No Party has relied on any information or representations that are not set forth in this Agreement. 18. Satisfactory Documentation. The Parties will execute any other documents and take any other action as may be reasonably necessary to further the purposes of this Agreement. In witness whereof, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement, consisting of eight typewritten pages and including Exhibits A, B, and C to this Agreement, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. VILLAGE OF WINNETKA Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC By: By: Its: Its: Date: Date: 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 8 Page 14 of 110  EXHIBIT A TOWER ROAD PROJECT 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 A-1 Page 15 of 110 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 2 Page 16 of 110  EXHIBIT B IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL FACILITIES 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 B-1 Page 17 of 110 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 2 Page 18 of 110 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 3 Page 19 of 110  EXHIBIT C AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS CHANCERY DIVISION VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2024 CH 05274 v. ) ) Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC ) ) Defendants. ) AGREED DISMISSAL ORDER This cause coming to be heard, the parties being in agreement, and the Court being advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered that: 1. This matter is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the parties’ June 9, 2026 “Settlement and Tolling Agreement” (“Settlement Agreement”), with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 2. Any previously-scheduled status dates are hereby stricken. 3. The court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the sole purpose of enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. 4. This order is final and not appealable. Agreed: __________________________ __________________________ Village of Winnetka Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC By: Its Attorney By: Its Attorney Peter Friedman Brian A. McAleenan ENTERED: Prepared by Peter M. Friedman Elrod Friedman LLP 350 N. Clark St., Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 Phone: (312) 528-5192 peter.friedman@elrodfriedman.com 4925-2825-7058, v. 10 C-1 Page 20 of 110  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Ordinance No. M-11-2026: Denying a Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness for New Fencing at Centennial Beach for Off-Leash Dogs (Centennial Park and Beach, 225 Sheridan Road) (Introduction/Adoption) PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: June 9, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: On May 19, 2026, the Village Council considered the Plan Commission (“PC”), Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), and Design Review Board (“DRB”) recommendations regarding an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of a Special Use Permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness. Following staff presentation, questions of the applicant, and public comment, the Village Council provided direction requesting that the Village Attorney and staff prepare an ordinance denying the requests. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 9, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider Ordinance M-11-2026, An Ordinance Denying a Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness for New Fencing at Centennial Beach for Off-Leash Dogs (Attachment 1). PROPOSED PLANS The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the beach to provide an enclosure to allow off- leash dogs on the beach. The Applicant has presented two different plans during the review process: the original plan (“Original Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the Plan Commission on January 28, 2026, and the new plan (“New Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the ZBA on March 9, 2026. Both plans were presented to and considered by the DRB on April 16, 2026. The Plan Commission was not presented the New Plan for review, and similarly, the ZBA was not presented the Original Plan for review. Original Plan (presented to the Plan Commission and DRB). The Original Plan consists of two rows of galvanized steel chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set back 20 feet from both the north Page 21 of 110 and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would be located at the base of the existing sea wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the beach into the lake. Both the north and south fence would have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates that they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate to remain at the top of bluff. North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing sea wall at the base of the bluff east towards the water. Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate 10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing sea wall east towards the water. Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM into the lake. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. As proposed in the Original Plan, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin. New Plan (presented to the ZBA and DRB). On February 5, the Winnetka Park District Board authorized a new plan, which was subsequently submitted to the Village for review. In the New Plan, the existing gate at the top of the bluff would remain but access would be controlled with a programed timed locking system that would operate from 6:00am to 10:00pm, this allows for public access to the beach. While entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area would be restricted with the key fob system currently in place at the top of the bluff. There would be a double-entry gate system to allow for unleashing and leashing of dogs. There would also be a 10-foot-wide maintenance access gate that would remain locked and used by Park District staff. The Fire Department has requested access to the maintenance gate for emergency responses, and the Applicant has agreed to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide access. The proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet of the beach frontage for dogs to be off-leash. This represents a reduction of approximately 50% from the Original Plan presented to the PC in terms of the linear frontage of the dog beach area. Another major difference in the New Plan is the addition of a west fence that would be located 12 feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without entering the off-leash dog area. This fence would be 4 feet in height above grade (sand level) and be black chain- link, rather than the galvanized chain-link proposed in the Original Plan. Use of Remaining Beach Area. The remaining portion of the beach consists of approximately 260 feet of lake frontage and would be used as a passive beach without swimming. The Applicant indicates that staffing for the passive beach would generally be late May through early September and that access to the beach would require a beach pass. The beach will remain accessible from 6:00am until 10:00pm outside the typical beach season, but it will not be staffed. Page 22 of 110 North Fence. The north portion of the fence would be 46’-6” feet in length with approximately 20 feet of the fence extending from the OHWM lakeward. The 4-foot-wide access gate would be located where the west and north fence meet. Patrons would enter through this gate into an unleashing and leashing area measuring 10 feet by 10 feet. The extent to which the proposed fence would extend beyond the OHWM is reduced by approximately 20 feet in the New Plan. South Fence. The south fence would be 49’-3” in length and also extend approximately 20 feet from the OHWM towards the lake. There would not be an access gate in this portion of the fencing. At the west end, the fence would be set back 5 feet from the south property line. Due to the angle of the existing steel groin, upon which the proposed fencing would be installed, in relation to the south property line, the distance between the proposed fence and the south property line would narrow from 5 feet at the west end until it meets the south property line and ends. Given the proximity of the proposed fence to the south property line, it is important to note the distance between the property line and the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin is approximately 10 feet and at this location the fence would be north of the property line by at least 1’-11”. Similar to the Original Plan, the two lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular, so that these sections could be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the OHWM and is defined as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM. The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed fence complies with the zoning regulations. ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW Plan Commission. On January 28, 2026, the PC considered the Applicant’s Original Plan and the only Plan the Applicant presented to the PC for approval of a special use permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. 15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request. By a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion of the Original Plan for consideration at the next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026. On February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Links to the approved findings and recommendation of the PC and the meeting minutes of both the January 28 and February 25 PC meetings are provided in Attachment 2. Zoning Board of Appeals. On February 9, 2026, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use. However, since the Winnetka Park District Board authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and the new plan had not been submitted to the Village for review in advance of the February 9 ZBA meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA voted to continue the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. At the March 9 meeting, after hearing from staff and the Applicant, the ZBA heard from 15 members of the public. Approximately 14 members of the public expressed significant concerns about safety, public access, parking, private property encroachments, and beach obstructions. By a vote of 7-0, the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation Page 23 of 110 of denial with written findings and determinations based on the ZBA’s discussion of the New Plan for consideration at the next ZBA meeting on March 16. On March 16, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Attachment 2 contains a link to the March 16 staff report, the approved findings and recommendation of the ZBA, and minutes of the three ZBA meetings at which this item was considered. Design Review Board. Consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed fencing at Centennial Beach was originally scheduled for the March 26, 2026, DRB meeting; however, the Applicant requested the item be continued to the April 16, 2026, DRB meeting. The DRB granted the Applicant’s request and continued the item to the April 16 DRB meeting. After hearing from staff and the applicant, the DRB heard from 11 members of the public who all expressed concerns about design and safety. The DRB then discussed the request. Members of the DRB expressed concern with the quality of the proposed material of the fence in both options presented by the Applicant, which consisted of the original plan presented to the PC with galvanized chain link fencing as well as the new plan that was presented to the ZBA with black vinyl-coated chain link fencing. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-0, the DRB directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the DRB’s discussion for consideration at the next DRB meeting. On May 7, by a vote of 4-0, the DRB approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Attachment 2 contains a link to the May 7 staff report, the approved findings and recommendation, and the meeting minutes of both the April 16 and May 7 DRB meetings. Details regarding both plans presented by the Applicant are provided in the April 16 DRB memo, which is linked to in Attachment 2. Additional public correspondence received since posting of the May 19 Village Council agenda packet is included in Attachment 3. VILLAGE COUNCIL DIRECTION On May 19, 2026, the Village Council considered the PC, ZBA, and DRB recommendations. After hearing from staff and responses to questions from the applicant, the Village Council heard from members of the public, many of whom expressed concerns with the proposed fencing, including about its design and safety. The Village Council then discussed the request. The Village Council commended the efforts of members of the PC, ZBA, and DRB in thoroughly reviewing the applications, and also expressed concerns regarding safety, design, and lakefront access, among other issues. While one Trustee expressed support for the New Plan, subject to conditions of approval, ultimately, by a vote of 5-1, the Village Council directed staff and the Village Attorney to prepare an ordinance to deny the requested Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness. RECOMMENDATION: Given the Village Council provided direction at its May 19, 2026, meeting, the Council may wish to (a) consider waiving introduction of Ordinance No. M-11-2026 and consider adoption of the Ordinance, or (b) consider only introduction of Ordinance No. M-11-2026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: Ordinance No. M-11-2026: Denying a SUP and Certificate of Appropriateness for New Fencing at Centennial Beach for Off-Leash Dogs 2. Attachment 2: Links to Previous Plan Commission, ZBA, DRB and Council Agenda Packets 3. Attachment 3 Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of May 19, 2026, Village Council Agenda Packet Page 24 of 110 Page 25 of 110  ORDINANCE NO. M-11-2026 AN ORDINANCE DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW FENCING AT CENTENNIAL BEACH FOR OFF-LEASH DOGS (Centennial Park and Beach, 225 Sheridan Road) WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka is a home rule municipality in accordance with Article VII, Section 6 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois and has the authority to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs; and WHEREAS, zoning and land-use planning are within the statutory and home rule powers of the Village; and WHEREAS, the corporate boundaries of the Village extend one-half mile into the waters of Lake Michigan contiguous to the Village and within the area of the Village’s corporate boundaries the Village enjoys its municipal authorities, including zoning, building, and general home rule powers to regulate for the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has previously determined by Ordinance that Lake Michigan, its coastline and beaches, and the adjacent properties and vistas provide a unique natural resource to the Village and its residents that must be preserved and protected; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has also previously determined by Ordinance that the portions of Lake Michigan within the corporate limits of the Village and the adjoining beaches, bluffs, and coastline have special historical, community, or aesthetic interest and value to the Village and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Village has the home rule and statutory authority to zone all land within the Village and to provide special use designations for public uses affected with the public interest; and WHEREAS, the Winnetka Park District is organized and operating under the Illinois Park District Code 70 ILCS 1205/1, et seq.; and WHEREAS, neither the Illinois Municipal Code nor the Park District Code provide park districts with immunity from the zoning and other ordinances of their host municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Park District is the owner of property in the Village commonly known as Centennial Park and Beach, located at 225 Sheridan Road (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is in the Village’s R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District pursuant to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property consists of approximately 5.3 acres and is located on the east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane; and 1 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 26 of 110  WHEREAS, under current Park District ordinances, off-leash dog use is prohibited at Centennial Beach; and WHEREAS, the Park District filed its original application on October 21, 2025, seeking approval from the Village of a Special Use Permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness to install new chain link fencing on Centennial Beach to provide an area on the Beach for off-leash dogs (“Proposed Fencing”): and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Park District’s proposal required notice and public hearings before the Winnetka Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission, after due notice, held an extensive public hearing and considered the Park District’s Special Use request for the Proposed Fencing at its January 28, 2026 meeting; and WHEREAS, the specific and only plan for the Proposed Fencing that the Park District presented to the Plan Commission and the public at this public hearing generally consisted of two rows of galvanized steel chain-link fencing, measuring four feet in height, and extending from the base of the existing sea wall perpendicularly eastward across the entire width of Centennial Beach and into the Lake (“Original Plan”); and WHEREAS, among other things, under the Original Plan, to walk along Centennial Beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the off-leash dog area of the Beach; and WHEREAS, at the Plan Commission public hearing, virtually all members of the public who provided written or in-person public comments expressed significant concerns about and were opposed to the Original Plan; and WHEREAS, following extensive testimony the Plan Commission unanimously directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the February 25, 2026 Plan Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2026, the Park District Board of Commissioners held a special meeting and determined to proceed with a new plan for the Proposed Fencing (“New Plan”); and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2026, by a unanimous vote of 6-0, the Plan Commission approved written findings and a recommendation that the Village Council deny the Special Use Permit for the Original Plan (the only plan that the Park District presented to the Plan Commission); and WHEREAS, specifically, the Plan Commission expressed concerns regarding, among other things, the piecemeal nature of the Proposed Fencing in the context of the Park District’s other plans for Centennial and other Village beaches, and safety of the Proposed Fencing for both individuals and dogs as well as the size and location of the Proposed Fencing along the full depth of the beach, thus blocking access to the beach and creating significant safety issues; and 2 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 27 of 110  WHEREAS, accordingly, the Plan Commission found that, notwithstanding the Park District’s representations regarding compliance with the standards for special use permits under the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed Fencing under the Original Plan did not satisfy the required standards and thus denial was appropriate under Section 17.56.120 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, after due notice, commenced a public hearing on the Park District’s Special Use request for the Proposed Fencing on February 9, 2026, but the matter was continued without presentation to the March 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting because the Park District Board had decided on February 5, 2026, to proceed with its New Plan and that Plan had not been submitted to the Village for review before the February 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting; and WHEREAS, under the New Plan, the Proposed Fencing, among other things, would (i) be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet of the Centennial Beach frontage for the exclusive use of dogs off-leash, (ii) include a new west fence in addition to the two rows of fencing that would run east toward the Lake, and (iii) utilize black chain-link fencing, rather than the galvanized chain-link proposed in the Original Plan; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, after due notice, held an extensive public hearing and considered the Park District’s Special Use request for the Proposed Fencing under the New Plan at its March 9, 2026 meeting; and WHEREAS, the New Plan was the only plan for the Proposed Fencing that the Park District presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, at the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing, virtually all members of the public who provided written or in-person public comment expressed significant concerns about and were opposed to the New Plan; and WHEREAS, following extensive testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the March 16, 2026 special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, by a unanimous vote of 6-0, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the written findings and a recommendation that the Village Council deny the Special Use Permit for the New Plan (the only plan that the Park District presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals); and WHEREAS, specifically, the Zoning Boad of Appeals expressed concerns regarding, among other things, possible hazards created by the Proposed Fencing, the location of the Proposed Fencing, impact of the Proposed Fencing on neighboring public property, parking issues, inconsistent uses at the north and south ends of the same beach with conflicts between dogs and individuals using the Subject Property, and trespass issues on the south with the admission by the Park District that no discussions had been had with the owner of the property to the south regarding this important access issue; and 3 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 28 of 110  WHEREAS, accordingly, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that, notwithstanding the Park District’s representations regarding compliance with the standards for special use permits under the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed Fencing under New Plan did not satisfy the required standards and thus denial was appropriate under Section 17.56.120 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, after due notice, commenced its public hearing on March 26, 2026, and continued and concluded its extensive public hearing on April 16, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board accommodated the Park District’s request to present to the Board both the Original Plan and the New Plan even though the Park District Board had previously stated that it was going to proceed with the New Plan and even though the Park District had presented only the Original Plan to the Plan Commission and only the New Plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, at the Design Review Board public hearing, virtually all members of the public who provided written or in-person public comments expressed significant concerns about and were opposed to the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan; and WHEREAS, following extensive testimony, the Design Review Board unanimously directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the May 7, 2026 Design Review Board meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2026, by a unanimous vote of 4-0, the Design Review Board approved the written findings and a recommendation that the Village Council deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan; and WHEREAS, specifically, due to the materials, design, and location of the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan, the Design Review Board found that the external architectural features of these proposals were inappropriate and incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood and the public beach environment of the Subject Property and may cause substantial depreciation in the effectiveness and value of the improvements on and surrounding the public property location of the Proposed Fencing; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the Design Review Board found that, notwithstanding the Park District’s representations regarding compliance with the standards for certificates of appropriateness under the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan did not satisfy the required standards and thus denial was appropriate under Section 15.40.010.I.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.56.070 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Village’s home rule powers, the Village Council has the authority, by majority vote the Village Council, and in the exercise of its discretion, to deny a special use application; and WHEREAS, taking into consideration the Plan Commission’s Findings and Recommendation, the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Findings and Recommendation, and the Design Review Board’s Findings and Recommendation, as well as the additional facts and circumstances 4 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 29 of 110 presented to the Village at its May 19, 2026 regular meeting at which the Park District responded to numerous questions from the Council and the public comments again unanimously opposed the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan, and pursuant to the Village’s powers under applicable law and its Zoning Ordinance, the President and Board of Trustees have determined that it is in the best interest of the Village and the public to deny the requested Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness, in accordance with this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that denial of the proposed Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness is in the best interest of the Village and its residents and that the requested Special Use for the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan will be adverse to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the Village and its residents and does not satisfy the criteria for special uses under Section 17.56.120 or the standards for certificates of appropriateness under Section 15.40.010 I.1; and WHEREAS, denial of the requested Special Use and Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed Fencing at Centennial Beach will not frustrate an essential purpose and statutory function of the Park District; and WHEREAS, the Village’s interests and decision on the Park District’s request do not originate from a desire to manage or control the Park District’s property or programs, but rather from the Village’s legitimate interest and authority in planning and regulating the use of land within the entire Winnetka community to minimize abrasive activities and promote uses consistent with the community character and expectations of Village residents; and WHEREAS, the Village and the Park District have a long history of intergovernmental cooperation on numerous important community matters, and the Village acknowledges and appreciates the Park District’s commitment to this ongoing legacy and commitment by applying for and undertaking the required public hearing and approval process for the requested Special Use and Certificate of Appropriateness; and WHEREAS, although the Park District continued forward with the Proposed Fencing in light of the overwhelming public opposition at the public hearings on this matter and in light of the unanimous votes of all three Village advisory boards that carefully considered and reviewed the Park District’s request, the Village remains committed to intergovernmental cooperation with the Park District and desires to work with the District to identify and properly locate an area for off-leash dogs if the Park District continues to believe that such an area is necessary in the Village; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka ordains as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The comprehensive recitals in this Ordinance are incorporated into this Section as the findings of the Council of the Village of Winnetka, as if fully set forth in this Section. SECTION 2: CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The President and Village Council have reviewed the record of the public hearings conducted by the Plan Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Design Review Board consisting, among other things, of (i) the Park District’s various applications, 5 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 30 of 110 attachments, and submittal documents, and all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials, attachments, and submittal documents; (ii) the Community Development staff memorandums, and all attachments; (iii) all written and oral testimony and public comments concerning the Park District’s Special Use and Certificate of Appropriateness application for the Proposed Fencing provided during the public hearings and meetings before the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Design Review Board, and Village Council; (iv) the February 25, 2026 Plan Commission Findings and Recommendation of denial; (v) the March 16, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals Findings and Recommendation of denial; and (vi) the May 7, 2026 Design Review Board Findings and Recommendation of denial. Having considered this record, the President and Village Council concur with the recommendations of the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Design Review Board and, in its discretion further finds and legislatively determines that the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan does not satisfy the applicable Special Use or Certificate of Appropriateness standards as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is not otherwise in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the Village and its residents. SECTION 3: DENIAL OF REQUESTED RELIEF. A. Special Use Permit. In accordance with Section 17.56.070 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Village’s home rule powers and other applicable law, the President and Village Council deny the Special Use Permit for the Proposed Fencing. B. Certificate of Appropriateness. In accordance with Section 15.40.010 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Village’s home rule powers and other applicable law, the President and Village Council deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed Fencing. SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or part of this Ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance will remain in full force and effect, and will be interpreted, applied, and enforced to achieve, as near as may be possible, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. PASSED this __ day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED this ___ day of _____________, 2026. Signed: 6 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 31 of 110  Village President Countersigned: Village Clerk Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2026. Introduced: June 9, 2026 Passed and Approved: __________ 7 June 9, 2026 M-11-2026 Page 32 of 110 Previous Meeting Packet Links January 28, 2026 Plan Commission meeting packet February 25, 2026 Plan Commission meeting packet February 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting packet March 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting packet March 16, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting packet March 26, 2026 Design Review Board meeting packet April 16, 2026 Design Review Board meeting packet May 7, 2026 Design Review Board meeting packet May 19, 2026 Village Council meeting packet Page 33 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Bridget Orsic; Kirk Albinson; Tina Dalman; Scott Myers; Robert Dearborn; Kim Handler; Robert Apatoff Subject: re 225 Sheridan - SUP and Certificate of Appropriateness at Centennial Beach Date: Friday, May 15, 2026 1:51:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Village of Winnetka Trustees: On May 19, 2026 you will be asked to consider and approve an application from the Winnetka Park District (WPD) to allow installation of fencing on the existing Centennial Beach. The WPD may ask that you consider two alternatives, differing in size, scope and accessibility. These plans have a single purpose: the installation of substantial chain link fencing at Centennial Beach in close proximity to a private homeowner's motorized boat ramp. Despite public comments to the contrary, the sole reason behind the continued application for a Special Use Permit (SUP), whether temporary or permanent, is because of a proposed Donation Agreement/Restrictive Covenant between a single property owner and the Winnetka Park District. Over a three-year period, various proposals from the WPD were presented to the Design Review Board, Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Every single review board unanimously rejected the project designs. At this point the Winnetka Park District and its leadership broadly lack credibility. The repetitive and ever-changing nature of the SUP application from the Winnetka Park District is indicative of a focus inconsistent with community views as to what residents want at the lakefront. I respectfully request that the Village Council deny this application. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Angie Dahl 1277 Forest Glen Dr N Former Commissioner, Winnetka Park District 1987-1995, 2000-2001 Former President, Winnetka Park District 1991-1995 Page 34 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Letter to Board of Trustees. May 19 2026 Regular Board Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:55:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Anne; This letter is from Philip Enquist. Please include in tonight’s packet. Village of Winnetka Board of Trustees Meeting May 19, 2026 We have seen the Zoning Board of Appeals, with its remarkable leadership, do what is right… We have seen the Plan Commission, also, do what is right…. And… We have seen the Design Review Board, yet again, do what is right…. Which is what? What is “right?” To unanimously vote against the proposed fence installations along and across Centennial Beach as proposed by the Winnetka Park District There is a quote that applies to where we are tonight… “The time is always right, to do what is right.” MLK For many generations, (even before the 1921 Plan of Winnetka), the Winnetka community has protected its woodlands, its parks and its lakefronts and also…. engaged citizens in the design discussions These landscapes are what make Winnetka a unique and special place. Now, it is on our watch… We are the “stewards” of this Great Lakes environment……. Not for ourselves but for all future generations We cannot support the destruction of a public lakefront beach…. in the last 4-5 years… we have seen the proposal of: large stone piers, high metal louvered fences, raised rose hedges, high concrete retaining walls, and numerous fence alternatives… all with the intention of creating obstacles that prohibit or inhibit public access on public lands. I ask the Village Council tonight, to please…. Continue the legacy, the leadership, and the stewardship, Protect our public lands, embrace the idea that we are stewards of this natural environment, and to vote against these fences….and all initiatives that fragment our public lands. Philip Enquist Page 35 of 110 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 36 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 evenings, after regular hours for permitted swimming and for the public in general. I have personally seen this regulatory scheme in action at beaches on the Atlantic Ocean in New Jersey, where it has worked well for years. Maximizing the effect of this proposal would, of course, include opening up all the lakefront that is now effectively barricaded by the kind of massive rock jetties that have recently been erected at either end of the Ishbia property, but this idea will work well even if nothing can be done to remove the rock jetties. This proposed solution will obviously cost a great deal less than the current Park District proposal, and it won’t involve further environmental degradation -- assuming that dog-owners pick up after the pets. It’s at least worth a try for a year or two. Doesn’t it at least deserve a try? MARC L. HECHT Page 37 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Re: Letter Regarding Centennial Beach Fence -REVISED Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:43:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Anne, I amended the document with the one enclosed. Could you replace? Thank you, Joanna Karatzas 19 May 2026 Village of Winnetka Board of Trustees Re: Fence proposed by the Winnetka Park District at Centennial Beach. Trustees; The Winnetka Park District presented plans during the Winnetka Park Board meeting on February 26, 2026 for extensive fencing at Centennial Beach. The plans do not include visuals of adjacency conditions such as the breakwater at the south boundary of Centennial. The proposed passage way to the steps of the breakwater looks tight. There are no perspectives or sections drawn describing the space between the proposed fence and breakwater. Before any decisions are made the WPD should provide this board and the public with a staked survey and detailed drawings. It would help us all visualize what the WPD is asking the trustees to agree to. At the south boundary, the steel groin angles toward the 205 Sheridan property line and its breakwater. It makes for an awkward trap in the lake. A fence on top of the groin would compound an already hazardous condition when it comes to life rescue. Lastly, whose property is the public going to be walking on when exercising their Public Trust Doctrine rights? Citizens will likely walk on 205 Sheridan sand to access the steps over the breakwater. How will the owner to the south respond? Beach walkers and 205 Sheridan already have a strained relationship. Centennial beach is too beautiful as it is to commit to this fence, particularly when the donation behind it mandates the WPD has to maintain the proposed fence for 50 years. Please deny this special use permit. Joanna Karatzas Winnetka Page 38 of 110 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 39 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 Our beach-loving dog Hippo On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:41 AM Ann Klaassen <AKlaassen@winnetka.org> wrote: Ms. Casper – Thank you for your email; we will be sure to share this with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Best regards, Ann Klaassen Assistant Director | Village of Winnetka Community Development 510 Green Bay Road - Winnetka, IL 60093 847.716.3525 Page 40 of 110  ATTACHMENT 3 From: Christine Colvin Casper < > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:48 AM To: Planning <Planning@winnetka.org> Subject: In support of dog beach fence Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi. This is Christine Casper. I live at 226 Sheridan Road. I can’t make it to the public hearing due to travel, but as avid and grateful users of the dog beach, my family would like to record our support for the fence plan (Case no. 25-28- SU). We would be glad for the beach to be in compliance with Cook County animal control regulations so we can enjoy off-leash beach fun and exercise with no hassle. Page 41 of 110 Page 42 of 110 Page 43 of 110 Page 44 of 110 Page 45 of 110 Page 46 of 110 Page 47 of 110 Page 48 of 110 Page 49 of 110 Page 50 of 110 Page 51 of 110 Page 52 of 110 Page 53 of 110 Page 54 of 110 Page 55 of 110 Page 56 of 110 Page 57 of 110 Page 58 of 110 Page 59 of 110 Page 60 of 110 Page 61 of 110 Page 62 of 110 Page 63 of 110 Page 64 of 110 Page 65 of 110 Page 66 of 110 Page 67 of 110 Page 68 of 110 Page 69 of 110 Page 70 of 110 Page 71 of 110 Page 72 of 110 Page 73 of 110  AGENDA REPORT TO: Village Council FROM: Steven M. Saunders, Dir. of Public Works/Village Engineer SUBJECT: Spruce Street Stormwater Outfall Update DEP’T. APPROVAL: S. Saunders MGR. APPROVAL: REF: October 10, 2000 Study Session DATE: May 31, 2001 At its October 10, 2000 Study Session, the Village Council discussed the proposed use of and improvements to the deteriorated concrete pier and stormwater outfall at the eastern terminus of Spruce Street, at Lake Michigan. The minutes of that Study Session state: After a thorough discussion of each street end and referring to the matrix of repair options suggested by Mr. Saunders at each location, the Council made the following preliminary recommendations: 1. Erect appropriate and uniform signage at each location to reduce liability. 2. At Fisher Lane: Change current use to recreational public access; replace the railing repair the concrete wall, and add steps; estimated cost $35,000 in current budget; Council consensus was to proceed with these repairs. 3. At Spruce Street: Change current use to recreational public access; remove and replace pier; estimated cost $185,000. 4. At Elm Street: Continue utility access with only incidental public access; reconfigure stormwater outlet; estimated cost $50,000. 5. At Oak Street: Retain no access; no repairs. 6. At Cherry Street: Change current use to recreational public access; repair pier, replace steps; estimated cost $70,000. 7. At Willow: Change current use to utility access only with incidental public access: remove pipe, replace steps, construct channel, reinforce bluff; estimated cost $105,000. In response to additional questions from the audience, President Holland stated that before any expenditures are made, each item would be incorporated into a five-year capital improvement plan and revisited by the Council with another opportunity to receive public comments and concerns. Page 74 of 110 Village staff, working with Dr. Charles Shabica as our consultant, has developed a proposed pier design that will provide protection for the outfall pipe, minimize impact upon the littoral drift, and provide for the Council’s stated wish that the area be used for “recreational public access”. Staff had circulated two construction options among the nearby properties for comment. The main difference between the two options is that in one option, the pier commences at the base of the bluff, while in the other, the pier commences roughly 40 to 50 feet from the bluff. The consultant’s (and staff’s) preferred option is to have the pier commence at the base of the bluff, in order to maximize protection for the pipe. All but the adjacent property to the south preferred the option with the pier at the base of the bluff. As a result, the Village has applied for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to construct the proposed pier. In addition, staff received two letters in response (attached) to our mailing. Mr. Warren Guthrie, 575 Sheridan. Mr. Guthrie lives directly adjacent to the project location and has expressed several objections to the Village’s preferred option. As of this writing, staff is attempting to arrange a meeting with Mr. Guthrie to discuss and address his concerns, and I hope to have additional information to present to you at the meeting. Mr. William Sick, 565 Sheridan. Mr. Sick lives to the south of the project site and has reiterated his concerns for the safety of those persons using the area. He has also reiterated his preference that the Village NOT proceed with a pier at all. Recommendation: Review correspondence and provide additional policy direction to staff. Page 75 of 110 Page 76 of 110 Page 77 of 110 Page 78 of 110 Page 79 of 110 Page 80 of 110 Page 81 of 110 Page 82 of 110 Page 83 of 110 Page 84 of 110 Page 85 of 110 Page 86 of 110 Page 87 of 110 Page 88 of 110 Page 89 of 110 Page 90 of 110 Page 91 of 110 Page 92 of 110 Page 93 of 110 Page 94 of 110 Page 95 of 110 Page 96 of 110 PILLAR 6: Healthy & Engaging Lifestyles Vision Statement: A unique lakefront community that values a variety of carefully-managed and well-connected parks and open spaces, and that treasures access to natural resources, recreational opportunities, and cultural pursuits, helping residents achieve a balanced and fulfilled quality of life. Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities. Goal 6.2: The Village will support and promote community institutions and other units of government in advancing programs and facilities that provide life-long educational opportunities that broaden all Winnetka residents’ understanding of the world in which we live. Goal 6.3: The Village will continue to support community-wide arts and cultural efforts that provide enrichment to community members through active participation, promotion, and programming efforts with other businesses, community institutions, and arts entities. Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open spaces. Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs. Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan includes ten Community Pillars. The following section describes Winnetka’s vision for Pillar 6: Healthy & Engaging Lifestyles. A summary of the existing conditions analysis along with community input received over the course of the process are shared in the next few pages. Following that is a list of actionable initiatives for each of the goals listed above. Note that the order of goals and initiatives does not reflect their level of priority. 154 WINNETKA FUTURES: 2040 PL AN RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 97 of 110 Page 98 of 110 Page 99 of 110 Page 100 of 110 Michigan bluffs and the ravines leading to the lake are PA R K L A N D L EV E L - OF- important features of the Village, providing pleasant SE RV IC E A NA LYSIS wooded areas and affording beautiful views of the lake. Bluffs and ravines are fragile ecological resources that Level-of-Service (LOS) analyses evaluate how well parks should be properly managed. Building too close to the and amenities serve the current needs of the community. edge of a bluff or ravine can weaken it, possibly leading to Benchmarks for park and recreation agencies by the collapse and affecting neighboring properties. Failure to National Parks and Recreation Association (NRPA) maintain proper plantings on the slope can lead to erosion. measure the total acreage needs of communities. LOS is Lake Michigan bluffs, if not properly protected from waves assessed through multiple avenues: acreage, distribution, and high water, can be severely eroded by the lake. and amenities. The Park District has taken efforts at monitoring and Acreage restoring its parkland. As with shoreline erosion, bluff erosion is a major concern across Lake Michigan. Acreage LOS is the calculation of the recommended minimum land required to support recreation activities and facilities for a given population. NRPA’s population ratio SPEC I A L USE FAC I L I T I E S method (10 acres / 1,000 population) focuses on the direct relationship between recreation space acreage and people Residents find community in many different Winnetka served. A community with a population of about 12,000 Park District (WPD) spaces and programs. For example, should have about 120 acres of total park and open space, the A.C. Nielsen Tennis Center, a Winnetka Park District per the NRPA’s ratio. With 372 acres of parks and open facility, features eight indoor and 12 outdoor courts (five space, Winnetka is well-served and has more than three lighted), a nursery, complete pro shop, and shower/locker times the minimum LOS recommendations. room facilities. Group and private lessons are available for all ages and abilities, as are permanent court time rentals. Community meetings and public engagement gatherings are often held in the WPD’s Community 372 Room, located near the WPD offices in the relatively new addition to the Nielsen Tennis Center, and in the Tennis acres of parks and Lounge, with its fireplace and living room-style furniture.   open space in Winnetka Additional special use facilities in Winnetka include: » The Winnetka paddle tennis facility » The Park District’s Winnetka Golf Club Distribution Level-of-Service Distribution Level-of-Service (DLOS) Analysis studies » The indoor Winnetka Ice Arena the geographic distribution of parks and evaluates how » The Skokie Playfields. equitably these sites are placed throughout the community. This may reveal that some areas are under-served or that the district is serving its residents and should shift its efforts towards maintaining and updating existing sites. The LOS of Winnetka’s parks is highlighted in Figure 31. Mini park service areas (blue discs) and neighborhood park service areas (green discs) are adjacent to or truncated by Green Bay Road, a major barrier. Conversely, the community park service area (red disc) is not interrupted. The overlapping service area discs create a gradient ranging from light to dark, illustrating to which degree residents are served. Residents who fall within a dark area are served by multiple parks and their amenities. 158 WINNETKA FUTURES: 2040 PL AN RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 101 of 110 Page 102 of 110 Page 103 of 110  Improvements at Tower Beach RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS WINNETKA FUTURES: 2040 PL AN 161 Page 104 of 110 Page 105 of 110 Page 106 of 110 Page 107 of 110 Page 108 of 110 Page 109 of 110 Page 110 of 110